A court case – Example on recognising and measuring provisions
Just to provide the right frame for the case here is a short introduction of the key features of IAS 37 needed to judge the court case.
Key definitions [IAS 37 10]
Provision: a liability of uncertain timing or amount.
- present obligation as a result of past events
- settlement is expected to result in an outflow of resources (payment)
- a possible obligation depending on whether some uncertain future event occurs, or
- a present obligation but payment is not probable or the amount cannot be measured reliably
Recognition of a provision
An entity must recognise a provision if, and only if: [IAS 37 14]
- a present obligation (legal or constructive) has arisen as a result of a past event (the obligating event),
- payment is probable (‘more likely than not’), and
- the amount can be estimated reliably.
An obligating event is an event that creates a legal or constructive obligation and, therefore, results in an entity having no realistic alternative but to settle the obligation. [IAS 37 10]
A constructive obligation arises if past practice creates a valid expectation on the part of a third party, for example, a retail store that has a long-standing policy of allowing customers to return merchandise within, say, a 30-day period. [IAS 37 10]
A possible obligation (a contingent liability) is disclosed but not accrued. However, disclosure is not required if payment is remote. [IAS 37 86]
In rare cases, for example in a lawsuit, it may not be clear whether an entity has a present obligation. In those cases, a past event is deemed to give rise to a present obligation if, taking account of all available evidence, it is more likely than not that a present obligation exists at the balance sheet date. A provision should be recognised for that present obligation if the other recognition criteria described above are met. If it is more likely than not that no present obligation exists, the entity should disclose a contingent liability, unless the possibility of an outflow of resources is remote. [IAS 37 15] A court case
A customer has sued Entity X, seeking damages for injury the customer allegedly sustained from using a product sold by Entity X. Entity X disputes liability on grounds that the customer did not follow directions in using the product. Up to the date the board authorised the financial statements for the year to 31 December 20X1 for issue, the entity’s lawyers advise that it is probable that the entity will not be found liable. However, when the entity prepares the financial statements for the year to 31 December 20X2, its lawyers advise that, owing to developments in the case, it is now probable that the entity will be found liable. A court case
(a) At 31 December 20X1
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event—on the basis of the evidence available when the financial statements were approved, there is no obligation as a result of past events.
Conclusion—no provision is recognised. The matter is disclosed as a contingent liability unless the probability of any outflow is regarded as remote. A court case
(b) At 31 December 20X2
Present obligation as a result of a past obligating event—on the basis of the evidence available, there is a present obligation. The obligating event is the sale of the product to the customer.
An outflow of resources embodying economic benefits in settlement— probable. A court case
Conclusion—a provision is recognised at the best estimate of the amount to settle the obligation at 31 December 20X2, and the expense is recognised in profit or loss. It is not a correction of an error in 20X1 because, on the basis of the evidence available when the 20X1 financial statements were approved, a provision should not have been recognised at that time. A court case
All of the entities in the examples have 31 December as their reporting date. In all cases, it is assumed that a reliable estimate can be made of any outflows expected. In some examples the circumstances described may have resulted in impairment of the assets; this aspect is not dealt with in the examples. References to ‘best estimate’ are to the present value amount, when the effect of the time value of money is material. A court case